excalibur
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2015
- 18,247
- 34,639
- 2,290
They have been dog-whistling for four years.
www.zerohedge.com
As Joe Biden and the rest of the Democrats attempt to place blame for the ongoing riots on President Trump, here's a two-minute clip of prominent Democrats, pundits, and actors calling for civil unrest, assassination, and violence against conservatives.
Except, it's gone too far.
As we noted earlier today, JP Morgan's Marko Kolanovic nailed it when he highlighted the 'Wasow effect' - named after Omar Wasow, who noted after studying historical impacts of various demonstration that peaceful protests by the left typically help Democrats by 2-3%, "while violent pro-Democrat demonstrations helped Republicans by 2-8%."
Kolanovic continues:
We believe that momentum related to the Wasow effect will continue in favor of Trump, unless Democrats pivot away from their stance regarding demonstrations. This may not be easy however, given that top Democrats have called for daily demonstrations (e.g. Kamala Harris) and rallied their base around the theme of defunding police and would need to effectively adopt Trump’s policy after 3 months as a reaction to polls. Some party officials already rationalized or promoted the behavior (see here, here). Moreover, turnout strongly depends on the left wing of the party (‘Bernie bros’, Marxist elements, etc.), which would be alienated by such a shift.
Wasow effect is basically who is helped by protesting: if peaceful, it's Dems, if violent, it's Republicans.
It should come as no surprise that Democrats and associated media outlets portray protests as mostly peaceful, while Republicans highlight the violent aspects of demonstrations.
However, there is an important difference between the current environment and historical results, in that social media plays a significant transmission role: voters can see for themselves if the protests are peaceful or violent. It is highly likely that social media distribution of videos of looting in Chicago, L.A. and NYC, arson in Minneapolis, Wisconsin, Portland, Seattle, etc. have led to a significant shift in election odds in favor of Republicans. Furthermore, by doing statistical simulation of the 1968 election, the author concluded that 1968 demonstrations directly resulted in the election of a Republican president. The impact of protest violence on the 2020 elections may be even larger. The reason is the broad online availability of violent footage (everyone can record and share in real time), but also the ability to influence social media to amplify this message (e.g. similar to the social media spread of Wikileaks emails in 2016). While it may be hard to compare the impact on 1968 elections vs. now, a number of indicators suggest it should be bigger now (e.g. record purchase of firearms, migration from large cities like NYC, etc.
Except, it's gone too far.
As we noted earlier today, JP Morgan's Marko Kolanovic nailed it when he highlighted the 'Wasow effect' - named after Omar Wasow, who noted after studying historical impacts of various demonstration that peaceful protests by the left typically help Democrats by 2-3%, "while violent pro-Democrat demonstrations helped Republicans by 2-8%."
Kolanovic continues:
We believe that momentum related to the Wasow effect will continue in favor of Trump, unless Democrats pivot away from their stance regarding demonstrations. This may not be easy however, given that top Democrats have called for daily demonstrations (e.g. Kamala Harris) and rallied their base around the theme of defunding police and would need to effectively adopt Trump’s policy after 3 months as a reaction to polls. Some party officials already rationalized or promoted the behavior (see here, here). Moreover, turnout strongly depends on the left wing of the party (‘Bernie bros’, Marxist elements, etc.), which would be alienated by such a shift.
Wasow effect is basically who is helped by protesting: if peaceful, it's Dems, if violent, it's Republicans.
It should come as no surprise that Democrats and associated media outlets portray protests as mostly peaceful, while Republicans highlight the violent aspects of demonstrations.
However, there is an important difference between the current environment and historical results, in that social media plays a significant transmission role: voters can see for themselves if the protests are peaceful or violent. It is highly likely that social media distribution of videos of looting in Chicago, L.A. and NYC, arson in Minneapolis, Wisconsin, Portland, Seattle, etc. have led to a significant shift in election odds in favor of Republicans. Furthermore, by doing statistical simulation of the 1968 election, the author concluded that 1968 demonstrations directly resulted in the election of a Republican president. The impact of protest violence on the 2020 elections may be even larger. The reason is the broad online availability of violent footage (everyone can record and share in real time), but also the ability to influence social media to amplify this message (e.g. similar to the social media spread of Wikileaks emails in 2016). While it may be hard to compare the impact on 1968 elections vs. now, a number of indicators suggest it should be bigger now (e.g. record purchase of firearms, migration from large cities like NYC, etc.
Watch As Democrats Spend Four Years Fantasizing About Riots, Assassination And Violent Chaos
They got what they asked for, except now it's backfiring...
